Writers often maintain that because they are the authors, they can reuse their work as they please; it couldn't be defined as "plagiarism" since they are not taking any words or ideas from someone else. However, while the debate on whether self-plagiarism is possible continues, the ethics of self-plagiarism is significant, especially because self-plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright. Your inputs please...
There is a the controversy and debate about self-plagiarism among scientists and publishers
I believe that we should be able to use our own work and we should not be forced to paraphrase our own work, as sometimes the previously written paragraph seems like the best understandable text and we are forced to replace it with a worse paragraph because of self-plagiarism guidelines
Authors can quote from portions of other works with proper citations, but large portions of text, even quoted and cited can infringe on copyright and would not fall under copyright exceptions or “fair use” guidelines. The Chicago Manual of Style (2010) gives as a “rule of thumb, one should never quote more than a few contiguous paragraphs or stanzas at a time or let the quotations, even scattered, begin to overshadow the quoter’s own material”
In addition to following fair use guidelines, authors need to recognize that copyright is not merely for published text. According to the U.S. Copyright Office (2010), a “work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”
The following blog from the American scientist presents a case:
When Is Self-Plagiarism OK?
from the Scientist
When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of plagiarizing his own work, he was a bit surprised. "I can't plagiarize myself -- those are my own words," he said.
And he is not alone in his views. Some scientists and publishers argue that it's "unavoidable" for scientists to re-use portions of their own text (not images or data, of course) from previous papers, and doing so may even be good practice. But others disagree, including many journals -- who have retracted papers in response.
"There are many ways you can say the same thing even when it comes to very technical language," said Miguel Roig of St. John's University, who has written extensively about plagiarism in academic literature. "It's a matter of what some have labeled poor scholarly etiquette."
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/content1/10661
There is a the controversy and debate about self-plagiarism among scientists and publishers
I believe that we should be able to use our own work and we should not be forced to paraphrase our own work, as sometimes the previously written paragraph seems like the best understandable text and we are forced to replace it with a worse paragraph because of self-plagiarism guidelines
Authors can quote from portions of other works with proper citations, but large portions of text, even quoted and cited can infringe on copyright and would not fall under copyright exceptions or “fair use” guidelines. The Chicago Manual of Style (2010) gives as a “rule of thumb, one should never quote more than a few contiguous paragraphs or stanzas at a time or let the quotations, even scattered, begin to overshadow the quoter’s own material”
In addition to following fair use guidelines, authors need to recognize that copyright is not merely for published text. According to the U.S. Copyright Office (2010), a “work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”
The following blog from the American scientist presents a case:
When Is Self-Plagiarism OK?
from the Scientist
When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of plagiarizing his own work, he was a bit surprised. "I can't plagiarize myself -- those are my own words," he said.
And he is not alone in his views. Some scientists and publishers argue that it's "unavoidable" for scientists to re-use portions of their own text (not images or data, of course) from previous papers, and doing so may even be good practice. But others disagree, including many journals -- who have retracted papers in response.
"There are many ways you can say the same thing even when it comes to very technical language," said Miguel Roig of St. John's University, who has written extensively about plagiarism in academic literature. "It's a matter of what some have labeled poor scholarly etiquette."
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/content1/10661
Dear Sribas,
Have you got any data or experience about this subject? I am afraid this information is generally unavailable. I do not think that anybody will analyse his/her own behaviour.
Writers often state that because they are the authors of a certain work, they can reuse their previous work. Many considerations have to be taken into account. One of them is that self-plagiarism crosses into copyright laws and ethical issues.
We appreciate that writers may go under significant pressure to publish, for some reason or another.
The iThenticate "white paper", titled The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism, says that "traditional definitions of plagiarism do not account for self-plagiarism".
The paper quotes Miguel Roig, professor of psychology at St John's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in New York, who argues that self-plagiarism occurs "when authors reuse their own previously written work or data in a 'new' written product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared elsewhere".
And it is not simply a matter of ethics and trust, the report says, pointing to issues of copyright.
For more details on the self-plagiarism we may consult the link here-under.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/417438.article
Reuse of material for the purpose of presenting in a different context by the author is generally allowed provided proper referencing is done. I am reproducing here ASEE position about their conference publications. So it is necessary to follow the guidelines of the publisher of the said journal.
“For conference proceedings, ASEE grants to authors and their employers permission to reuse portions of a paper in other works, to post papers on authors’ personal websites and in institutional repositories, and to reproduce the paper for personal or internal use, provided that (a) the source and ASEE copyright are indicated; (b) the copies are not used in a way that states explicitly or implies ASEE endorsement of the product or service of an employer; (c) the copies are not offered for sale; and (d) that a paper or portion thereof not be reused for promotion or marketing purposes without consent of the authors or their employers.”
Every researcher will always have a connect to the research previously carried out. This continuity cannot be termed plagiarism, provided that reference is properly accounted. However, it would be inappropriate and monotony rerun if the researcher presents the same content without any update or improvement over the previous research publication.
If the self-referencing is absolutely necessary for the explanation of the article's main theme, then it should be used, but I know people that are Full Professors for more than 20 years and they have only internal references at their impact factor composition.
It should be, first of all, be established a mechanism for a kind of 'cut-off' for such a parasitic scientific behavior...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics